You're basically saying the fact that the government can investigate a thing is proof that the government is too powerful.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that an investigation was opened with the specific purpose of jailing an executive: I don't see any indication that was the case, and just about anyone in or outside of government could have predicted before the investigation that no executive would go to jail over this.
Infuriating, but did we really expect any differently? These programs are a bureaucrat's wet dream. A single congressional hearing is not going to make them go away. The continued leaking of the more incriminating documents - an inevitability at this point - is only thing that can put sufficient pressure on these people to change their course.
An attempted coverup is often punished harshly. Richard Nixon and Martha Stewart should have taught everyone that. How is this not obstruction of justice[1], or whatever Canada calls it?
Obstruction charges can also be laid
if a person alters, destroys, or conceals
physical evidence
Not just a court case though, an investigation or a "psych eval" are enough to ruin someone. Take a look at Russ Tice.
Also, read Ronan Farrow's piece from the New Yorker last week. They targeted a straight-laced DOJ lawyer with >20 years of experience. These organizations are out of control and pose a very serious threat to our freedom.
The US uniquely shields officials in these cases which promotes coverups. That’s a specific, systematic, and correctable failing of the US justice system not simply normal human issues.
How hard it is for the coverup to work is largely irrelevant IMO.
Yet, it is done. Just not always. Obstruction of Justice is a crime. As is failing to report income from a crime, on your taxes.
But the woman who ordered the videotapes of US torture sessions erased was appointed head of CIA, instead of being prosecuted. Meanwhile, the whistleblower Jeffrey Skilling was charged with mishandling information that was only classified after he last touched it.
The thing that makes me most skeptical of secret government hit squads is how totally unnecessary they are.
The US government can utterly ruin anyone's life through prosecution if it so chooses. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to think of all of the leakers, nonviolent noncompliers, and activist who have been targeted over the years. Prosecution is zero risk for the individuals ordering it. The brief flurry of attention the prosecuted receive is insignificant compared to the cost to them in time, credibility, and money. And prosecution sends a very clear message to deter others.
As a tool for punishing critics in a country like the US, prosecution is simply unmatched.
This is an awful lot of effort to catch a "liar/criminal" (one precludes the other).
I think it's time for a "truth and reconciliation" committee where we remove every sitting congress-person, the Obama Administration at large, and at least the top-level of bureaucrats involved.
One other thought I had is, was the H1-B thing in the immigration act a "payoff" to the same tech CEOs selling the world out? A cynical thought, but a cynical time indeed.
Completely agree. You'd think that when something like this happens, it would be followed up by a string of arrests. There is a total lack of accountability in this country. This country is totally corrupted.
I would love to see some examples of people who have engaged in similar practices that we didn't bother to prosecute. Like people complaining about 'Obama's war on Leakers,' these assertions of prosecutorial vindictiveness are meaningless without context.
reply